> Just look at SpaceX – before SpaceX, NASA had the ability to send stuff to space. But post-SpaceX, they can send more payloads at a cheaper cost. Isn't that better?

They're now at the whim of an exceedingly eccentric billionaire for their space flight stuff. If Musk one day says he doesn't want to put up satellites that can be used to threaten Russia, NASA can't do anything about it, at least immediately (as they can't just rebuild their payload to fit into ULA rockets). We've already seen that play out with Starlink.

The world pre-SpaceX wasn't good either as NASA was mostly (ab)used by Congress to distribute pork, but now I think the pendulum has swung to the other side way too far - now Congress has zero control short of emergency nationalization over SpaceX.

Before NASA started using SpaceX they basically didn't have launch capacity. They were sending astronauts to the ISS on Soyuz rockets. A private US company being the best available launch provider is an improvement on the previous status quo.

Beyond that, there are now many, many other private endeavors working to add launch capacity, many of which exist thanks to SpaceX.

Before this literally congress had to beg the Russians for space engines. And we were at the whim of a nation state that we are enemies with. I’ll take free market capitalism any day.

Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. When you refuse to pay you end up getting what you paid for.